Gravity is underrated and too awesome.

Could gravity be the pull of a 5th Dimension? Our 3 spacial dimensions want to spread out into all dimensions to even out the matter; but cannot, leading to a storage of kinetic energy (or a constant state of 'moving').

So matter is like an air bubble appearing in water when the pressure is low enough. The pressure builds too much and collapses into the dimension causing a black hole.

Re: Solid State

Welcome to SPCF solid! You seem to have a cross between poetry and science, which can be useful in brainstorming ideas. To become either one however, I think will take further development.

solid_shot123 wrote:Could gravity be the pull of a 5th Dimension?

You'd need to explain why a dimension should "pull" anything. Individually, dimensions provide the potential for separation, with no restriction on proximity. Translational freedom is thus implied. Together, additional dimensions bring rotational freedoms as well, which varies according to the type (uni- or bi-directional) and number of dimensions.

solid_shot123 wrote:Our 3 spacial dimensions want to spread out into all dimensions to even out the matter

Particles tend to diffuse to a statistically more likely (higher entropy) state in their space, regardless of any expansion that may be occurring to that space.

solid_shot123 wrote:storage of kinetic energy (or a constant state of 'moving')

If you're saying there is conservation of mass-energy over time and that much of it can be accounted for with thermodynamics, I agree.

solid_shot123 wrote:So matter is like an air bubble appearing in water when the pressure is low enough. The pressure builds too much and collapses into the dimension causing a black hole.

I've heard worse analogies. If it helps, hang on to it. But I wouldn't use it to answer test questions.

Re: Gravity is underrated and too awesome.

Gravity is a pseudoforce, rather like that attractive force that causes 2 polar bears marching due north to eventually bump into each other at the north pole. The bears started out on parallel paths, miles apart, but the simple geometry of a sphere brought them together.

Things freefall in the warp of spacetime and sometimes run into each other. Spacetime geometry is why that apple falls not far from the tree. Why is the apple not static? What gets it going along its Earth-curved path in space? Because spacetime is a 4-vector, and one of those vectors is time.....and everything moves through time! You can be still in a purely spatial vector, but you can't be still in time. The only force on the apple is when it was either sticking to its branch or sitting on the ground -- that was electrostatic force that binds molecules together and resists the apple's natural tendency to freefall from the tree and around the Earth's center of gravity. Potential energy is released when it falls and so it accelerates towards its lower energy state.

Also: beware of rubber sheet analogies. Why would the hazel nut roll toward the bowling ball? Because you have to imagine gravity is somehow tugging objects in the sheet of 3-space.....so you are sneaking gravity into an explanation of gravity, and it's all rather circular. What's important is to remember that spacetime includes the dynamic of time, so motion is inherent. Without the time component, you have not even a pseudoforce.

Re: No Jacket Required

Gravity is a pseudoforce...everything moves through time...spacetime includes the dynamic of time, so motion is inherent. Without the time component, you have not even a pseudoforce

In the rubber sheet analogy, our gravity (G) stands in for time, while the curvature of the sheet represents its gravity (in 2D). That analogy might also be used in free fall, if mounted appropriately in a centrifuge, where centrifugal force (CF), another pseudo variety, acts as artificial gravity. In that sense, CF is "anti-gravity" in that things fall up from its center and experience divergent tidal forces. Interestingly, divergence would tend to expand the rubber sheet.

A divergent temporal field, as radiating from a rotating source, is consistent with spatial expansion.

Re: Gravity is underrated and too awesome.

Time being detected by the duration of a movement from one point to the other, and distance being detected the same way, could they be two faces of the same coin? What I mean is, could they be two different ways of observing the same “dimension”, and not be two “different” dimensions?

On the other hand, we know that:

Experiencing “free fall” is similar to floating in “flat space-time”; but floating in flat space-time is not “free-falling”, since “falling” occurs in “non-flat space-time” (but the results are identical)

Just like in Galileo’s boat, you pour coffee in a cup just like if the boat was not moving; but it is moving. So the “fact” moving is not the same as the “fact” not moving, although its consequences are “similar”.

The same as if you’re “standing” on a Lagrangian point, you’re not “falling” anywhere (on either “sides”); but you have to adopt (or have) the speed of the environment to stay on that L point.

In the “flat space-time” your speed doesn’t have any consequences; you keep the same straight trajectory at the speed given by your “personal” kinetic energy (there is no “attraction” whatsoever involved, since there’s no space-time deformation involved). But when you “enter” a “non-flat” space-time, your trajectory simply deviates (because space-time is curved). Coming out of the deformation, you proceed again in a “flat trajectory” (but in another direction), at your previous “personal” speed. Which implies that neither time nor distances have changed, except during the crossing of that “non-flat” space-time, where time AND distances where collapsing gradually toward the center of gravity.

Crossing those collapsing time and distances made you perceive a different speed but the "fact" is that you proceeded at the same speed as previously. In fact the speed was the same but the velocity was changing.

I wonder if this post is relevant to the subject. I'm in "free fall", I guess.